Binders of Women

It had to be one of the more ironic turns of a phrase in debate history: “binders of women”. Of course, Willard was lying about his record and his actions in the past (his administration in Massachusetts actually had less women in senior positions; and the recommendation for qualified women was given to his campaign not by request). The resonance with the phrase is in the word “binders”.

It’s no secret that Willard’s religion devalues the worth and rights of women, but let’s face it, most religions do. It is when that world view of women as somehow submissive or subservient to men translates into policy that we should draw the line. Refusing to support the Lilly Ledbetter Act is probably the most obvious confirmation that under a Romney Administration, women’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would have suffered significantly. Some Romney apologists suggest that his refusal to endorse equal pay for equal work for women, was more of a reflection of his willingness to let corporations determine worker’s rights. However, when you look at the full spectrum of the policy positions of the Republican Party, one cannot escape the conclusion that Romney indeed was a “binder of women”.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 4th, 2012 at 2:30 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Post navigation

3 Responses to Binders of Women

A woman should never give up the right to choose. nor should anyone be forced to give life or take it away. With each step of the way we find the key is always elemental to the question. That key remains the same. education , like water to a fish, in the quest to create questions that lead each of us to better questions until we discover the right one to be asking in order to find the most informed choices is still the ultimate tool for a life unbound,
One of the most dangerous activities is not asking any questions, or accepting the answer to the first one.
looking forward …. thanks

It is, ultimately, about our collective values as “We the People.” Those values of freedom and liberty are ancient, and many are ensconced in our Constitution. Jefferson called these truths “self-evident” in the Declaration of Independence, and sufficiently important to commit treason against his sovereign king. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Theodore Roosevelt said, “We are the government, the government is us.” We the People. What is important and dear and what is superfluous and passing? We all know these values, they were taught to us by our parents and grandparents. Decency, honesty, integrity and fairness. As a boy I was told, “never bring shame back unto this house.” You don’t take advantage of others, just because you can.

Does it shock your conscience that in your state legislative chambers that the chair of the majority party in both the Michigan House and the Michigan Senate refuse to recognize the minority legislators to even speak on a bill – not just right to work, but a myriad of other bills? It should.

Does it shock your notions of fairness and fair play that bills, such as “right to work,” are being attached to other bills, so that the five day minimum periods can be avoided, or that appropriations are being attached to bills, such as right to work legislation, to make them “referendum proof?” It should. Does that chicanery jibe with truth, justice, decency and morality? It doesn’t. Doesn’t it stand to reason that these basic values are what it means to be a citizen of this State, and an American, and what we expect from our lawmakers? Why should you accept it from your own affiliated party, if you would not accept it from the opposition party. Where does it end? Christians are to not only to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but (also) reprove them.” (Eph. 5:11). Those who do nothing about sin and evil, help the sin and evil to prevail. One who is silent when there are those around him in sin becomes a partaker with them. (Eph. 5:7).

How can elected officials claim to be for Christian (with a capital “C”) principles, where they are beholden to the highest bidder, such as gambling industrialists, bankers, waste haulers, landfill operators, and U.P. mining polluters, to name a few. They can’t. Furthermore, they don’t even pretend to conceal their conflicted interests with those of the public and the common good, and their sworn oaths of office. After holding office for a few years and being termed out, those same legislators go to work for the same insurance and financial industries that they regulated. They accept jobs for $400K – $500K per year. Their “work” as legislators create Billions of dollars in profits for their new employers for decades to come. It’s all true, and a matter of public record. Does that bother you? It should.

Does it bother you that the Constitutional Right to a jury trial on civil cases is routinely disregarded in favor of politicized judges deciding the case? It should. Aren’t those “stupid jurors” the same citizens that vote and elect the judges? Aren’t they our neighbors, aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, sons and daughters? They are. We the People. Why can’t these jurors, focused 100% on a case in a court of law, able to decide the merits of a case of one of their fellow citizens? They can, but can’t because the politicized Judge, often a former insurance defense attorney, dismisses the case. And the insurance companies keep Michigan insurance premiums the highest in the nation, where there is little liability left under the “reformed” law. Billions in profits soon follow. Is that right and just? No, it isn’t, unless you are on the inside of the proverbial gravy train. How can we be lead around by the noses to believe and repeat nonsensical talking points? Remember your values, and the reason why men and women fought and died for them.

As it was in Germany in the 1920 and 1930s, so it is here and now.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.